지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The health insurance system has developed remarkably over the
past three decades. It began as the medical insurance system in 1977.
For 12 years since its inception, the old system had focused on
expanding the number of its beneficiaries. In 1989, the old system
decided to cover self-employed people in urban areas. The same year,
it was replaced by a new one, the current health insurance system, to
cover all people across social strata. Under Article 40 of the National
Health Insurance Act, hospitals and clinics are forcibly designated by
the government as institutions of medical treatment and recuperation.
The health insurance system is designed to meet the needs of all
people for medical services and benefits by raising sufficient funds for
insurance coverage.
The system of forcibly designating institutions of medical
treatment and recuperation, however, ironically paved the way for an
excessive distortion of the medical system, considering that it allowed
medical authorities to manage and operate the medical system with
unilateral control and instruction, instead of rational means.
As an example, an “arbitrary exclusion of patients from health
insurance coverage benefits in some medicines and treatment” became
a big issue between St. Mary’s Hospital in Yeouido, Seoul and a group of leukemia patients in December 2006. The issue still remains a hot
potato. Under the current National Health Insurance Act, medical
institutions' arbitrary exclusion of patients from health insurance
coverage benefits in some medicines and treatment, which are deemed
absolutely necessary for certain groups of patients from a medical
point of view, constitutes “fraud and deceit,” most of the Supreme
Court case summaries have thus ruled. It is, therefore, noteworthy that
Justice Cho Dae-hyun of the Constitutional Court directly recently
commented on this issue when he presented his view on the
constitutionality of an “atopic patient case.”
There currently exists a judicial relationship between doctors and
their patients under medical contract. Their relationship in this context
never changes, although their relationship is affected by administrative
authorities' intervention in the payment of medical expenses within the
social security framework called health insurance. But national
insurance coverage standards are nothing but regulatory rules aimed at
attaining the goals of the health insurance system, not binding laws
that could deny the effects of medical contracts between doctors and
their patients. Now, it is high time to make a well-balanced
constitutional interpretation of the trilateral relationship between
doctors, patients and the National Health Insurance Corporation.
The current doctors' fees are unrealistically low, which has caused
discontent within medical circles and institutions. Under these
circumstances, it is urgently necessary to increase the doctors' fees to
a realistic level. Given the insufficient health insurance coverage funds,
I hereby would like to suggest a way to expand tax revenues most
realistically: to levy “health tax” as a national tax on the consumers of
tobaccos, liquors and oil, substances deemed harmful to the people's
health. I would also like to suggest a way to guarantee the legal status of institutions of medical treatment and recuperation legally and
systematically : to establish an autonomous health insurance system
based on market principles, so that medical staff and institutions can
take a more proactive attitude toward their patients.
The health insurance system has developed remarkably over the past three decades. It began as the medical insurance system in 1977. For 12 years since its inception, the old system had focused on expanding the number of its beneficiaries. In 1989, the old system decided to cover self-employed people in urban areas. The same year, it was replaced by a new one, the current health insurance system, to cover all people across social strata. Under Article 40 of the National Health Insurance Act, hospitals and clinics are forcibly designated by the government as institutions of medical treatment and recuperation. The health insurance system is designed to meet the needs of all people for medical services and benefits by raising sufficient funds for insurance coverage. The system of forcibly designating institutions of medical treatment and recuperation, however, ironically paved the way for an excessive distortion of the medical system, considering that it allowed medical authorities to manage and operate the medical system with unilateral control and instruction, instead of rational means. As an example, an “arbitrary exclusion of patients from health insurance coverage benefits in some medicines and treatment” became a big issue between St. Mary’s Hospital in Yeouido, Seoul and a group of leukemia patients in December 2006. The issue still remains a hot potato. Under the current National Health Insurance Act, medical institutions' arbitrary exclusion of patients from health insurance coverage benefits in some medicines and treatment, which are deemed absolutely necessary for certain groups of patients from a medical point of view, constitutes “fraud and deceit,” most of the Supreme Court case summaries have thus ruled. It is, therefore, noteworthy that Justice Cho Dae-hyun of the Constitutional Court directly recently commented on this issue when he presented his view on the constitutionality of an “atopic patient case.” There currently exists a judicial relationship between doctors and their patients under medical contract. Their relationship in this context never changes, although their relationship is affected by administrative authorities' intervention in the payment of medical expenses within the social security framework called health insurance. But national insurance coverage standards are nothing but regulatory rules aimed at attaining the goals of the health insurance system, not binding laws that could deny the effects of medical contracts between doctors and their patients. Now, it is high time to make a well-balanced constitutional interpretation of the trilateral relationship between doctors, patients and the National Health Insurance Corporation. The current doctors' fees are unrealistically low, which has caused discontent within medical circles and institutions. Under these circumstances, it is urgently necessary to increase the doctors' fees to a realistic level. Given the insufficient health insurance coverage funds, I hereby would like to suggest a way to expand tax revenues most realistically: to levy “health tax” as a national tax on the consumers of tobaccos, liquors and oil, substances deemed harmful to the people's health. I would also like to suggest a way to guarantee the legal status of institutions of medical treatment and recuperation legally and systematically : to establish an autonomous health insurance system based on market principles, so that medical staff and institutions can take a more proactive attitude toward their patients.
The health insurance system has developed remarkably over the past three decades. It began as the medical insurance system in 1977. For 12 years since its inception, the old system had focused on expanding the number of its beneficiaries. In 1989, the old system decided to cover self-employed people in urban areas. The same year, it was replaced by a new one, the current health insurance system, to cover all people across social strata. Under Article 40 of the National Health Insurance Act, hospitals and clinics are forcibly designated by the government as institutions of medical treatment and recuperation. The health insurance system is designed to meet the needs of all people for medical services and benefits by raising sufficient funds for insurance coverage. The system of forcibly designating institutions of medical treatment and recuperation, however, ironically paved the way for an excessive distortion of the medical system, considering that it allowed medical authorities to manage and operate the medical system with unilateral control and instruction, instead of rational means. As an example, an “arbitrary exclusion of patients from health insurance coverage benefits in some medicines and treatment” became a big issue between St. Mary’s Hospital in Yeouido, Seoul and a group of leukemia patients in December 2006. The issue still remains a hot potato. Under the current National Health Insurance Act, medical institutions' arbitrary exclusion of patients from health insurance coverage benefits in some medicines and treatment, which are deemed absolutely necessary for certain groups of patients from a medical point of view, constitutes “fraud and deceit,” most of the Supreme Court case summaries have thus ruled. It is, therefore, noteworthy that Justice Cho Dae-hyun of the Constitutional Court directly recently commented on this issue when he presented his view on the constitutionality of an “atopic patient case.” There currently exists a judicial relationship between doctors and their patients under medical contract. Their relationship in this context never changes, although their relationship is affected by administrative authorities' intervention in the payment of medical expenses within the social security framework called health insurance. But national insurance coverage standards are nothing but regulatory rules aimed at attaining the goals of the health insurance system, not binding laws that could deny the effects of medical contracts between doctors and their patients. Now, it is high time to make a well-balanced constitutional interpretation of the trilateral relationship between doctors, patients and the National Health Insurance Corporation. The current doctors' fees are unrealistically low, which has caused discontent within medical circles and institutions. Under these circumstances, it is urgently necessary to increase the doctors' fees to a realistic level. Given the insufficient health insurance coverage funds, I hereby would like to suggest a way to expand tax revenues most realistically: to levy “health tax” as a national tax on the consumers of tobaccos, liquors and oil, substances deemed harmful to the people's health. I would also like to suggest a way to guarantee the legal status of institutions of medical treatment and recuperation legally and systematically : to establish an autonomous health insurance system based on market principles, so that medical staff and institutions can take a more proactive attitude toward their patients.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (24)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
국민건강보험법의 발전과정과 법정책적 과제
의료법학
2007 .01
-
우리나라와 일본의 건강보험에서의 치과의료보장 현황
의료경영학연구
2017 .01
-
종합전문요양기관과 종합병원의 선택진료 결정요인
보건행정학회지
2011 .01
-
환자들의 건강보험(의료보호)증 이용도에 대한 조사연구
보건과 복지
2003 .12
-
건강보험 보장성 강화대책에 따른 건강보험 재정추계
보건경제와 정책연구
2020 .01
-
이집트 손해보험산업 연구
한국아프리카학회지
2013 .06
-
민간의료보험 활성화에 대한 입원환자의 인식 및 태도에 미치는 영향 - 서울시내 일개 종합병원을 대상으로 -
한국병원경영학회지
2008 .01
-
건강보험법에서 사회보험법의 원리(칙)와 그 특징 및 구조에 관한 연구
노동법논총
2011 .04
-
건강보험에 있어서 의사와 환자간의 법률관계 - 임의비급여 문제를 중심으로 -
의료법학
2007 .01
-
건강보험법제의 과제와 해결방안
법과 정책연구
2014 .01
-
손해보험사의 장기저축성보험 규제에 관한 소고
경영법률
2011 .01
-
한국 건강보험법 시행 30년의 역사와 과제
의료법학
2007 .01
-
민간의료보험의 현황 및 활성화에 관한 연구
보건행정학회지
1997 .01
-
일본의 新保險法의 제정
法學論文集
2008 .01
-
건강보험 40년 성과와 과제
보건행정학회지
2017 .01
-
건강보험 재정확충으로 인한 실제적 문제점과 대책에 관한 고찰
법학연구
2018 .09
-
보험소비자보호에 관한 연구 –2012년 입법예고된 상법 보험편 개정안 통칙편을 중심으로-
원광법학
2013 .01
-
암 보험이 암 환자의 의료이용 및 의료비에 미친 영향
보건행정학회지
2005 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0